RE: Re[1] DAML-ONT: the case for closedness

At 10:20 +0200 10/24/00, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>Pat Hayes:
> > This means that (barring some new security mechanism) one
> > should never archive a bare conclusion, but only archive a
> > conclusion together with its derivation (logical proof).
>
>Archive and communicate: e.g. a service can be provided when
>the proof is accepted and something that is derived from that
>proof could be returned by the service provider (as an invoice
>or something like that) ... and we get audit trails and so on.
>
>--
>Jos De Roo

Yup - and if you check out the stuff Tim Berners-Lee has written on 
the semantic web and web logics you'll see that this is exactly the 
sort of thing he has in mind.  I used the example in a number of 
talks where someone orders a book, and the bookseller would send 
something like this to his "accountant" agent:

{Purchased(user1,book1,AOL);www.confirm.com#t1221122}
{Priceof(book1, $30);AOL-historyDB#t29293910}
{Purchase(a,b,c) & Priceof(b,d) -> Owes(a,c,d);www.ont.com/prodont}

where each piece of the logic is tagged to where it could be 
confirmed (and I simplified the logic not to include the URI tags on 
the predicates and variables or it would be more like:

(Prodont:purchased(prodont:uservariable, prodont:productvariable ... etc )

  I think the idea of being able to specify what ontology one is 
using, what rule set, etc. makes the idea workable - and is probably 
a necessary condition to any logic that really is going to be 
embedded on the web
  -Jim H

Prof. James Hendler		Program Manager
DARPA/ISO			703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203		jhendler@darpa.mil

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 13:13:31 UTC